preview_flat_belt_pulley

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Preview' implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not state what the preview returns, whether it requires an active document, whether it creates temporary geometry, or any side effects. The behavior is under-disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential detail (e.g., no usage guidance, no behavioral notes). It earns a passing score for efficiency but not for completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a preview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the expected return value, whether the operation is read-only, or any preconditions (e.g., open document, existing geometry). An agent would have to guess at invocation expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (though crown_height has a schema description, the signal states 0%). The description does not explain any of the parameters beyond what the schema already states. For a tool with three parameters and no param-level descriptions, the description should compensate, but it adds nothing about face_width or outer_diameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Preview' and the resource 'flat-belt pulley rim', and adds the key distinction of cylindrical vs crowned geometry. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling preview tools like preview_timing_belt_pulley or preview_poly_v_groove, but the resource is specific enough to identify its domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling preview tools for other belt types (timing, V-belt, poly-V), but the description gives no conditions for selecting this one. It only describes what the tool does, not when to prefer it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.